19840412 TZHC Mwanza
- Citation
- 19840412 TZHC Mwanza
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Tanzania
- Court
- TZHC
- Decision
- 12 April 1984
- Posture
- Civil Appeal / Judgment
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- TZHC
- Decision
- 12 April 1984
- Posture
- Civil Appeal / Judgment
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The will was invalid as it was not signed by the testator nor attested by required witnesses; thus, the appellant was entitled to inheritance under customary law.
Court disposition
appeal allowed
Orders
- Quash the proceedings and ruling in District Court Appeal No. 79/78.
- Order that the appeal be treated as not filed.
- Remit Katoma Primary Court C.C. 7/77 back to the trial court to enforce its judgment.
- No order as to costs.
02
Material facts
Parties
Laurian Cyprijn
RespondentUnnamed Appellant
Appellant03
Procedural history
Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the District Magistrate erred in denying the appellant representation
- 02
Whether the will produced by the respondent was valid under applicable law
Party arguments
- Applicant
- Appellant argued prejudice due to denial of representation while respondent was represented.
- Respondent
- Respondent objected to appellant's request for representation and relied on the will allegedly written by the deceased.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
GN436/63
A will must comply with statutory requirements including signature and attestation by witnesses.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The will was invalid as it was not signed by the testator nor attested by required witnesses; thus, the appellant was entitled to inheritance under customary law.
Obiter and limits
- Remanding the respondent's appeal would only encourage delay as it is clear it will not succeed.
- Both parties agreed that settling the inheritance issue is preferable.
Court disposition
appeal allowed
- Quash the proceedings and ruling in District Court Appeal No. 79/78.
- Order that the appeal be treated as not filed.
- Remit Katoma Primary Court C.C. 7/77 back to the trial court to enforce its judgment.
- No order as to costs.
Source and reliance status
TZHC · 12 April 1984
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
TZHC
Judgment· 12 April 1984
( -
IN THK HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA (In the District Registry) at Mt-ianza a (nc) CtVIL APPEAL iTO. 127 OP 1979 (From the deÔision of t1i:c, district cou.rt of Thikol3a district at Pukoba in civil appeal Ho. 79 of 1978 fore:1K. ilachumu Esq4 District Magistrate)
VERSUS LAURIAN CYPRIJN : : : : : :: : : : : : : RESPONDENT
S
JUDGMENT MJNIRA 3:— This appeal arises out of an interlocu.tory ruling of the District Magistrate in his appellate capacity. The, original suit commenced in Katoma Primary Court. The appellant was the plaintiff and was claiming inheritance* The rc-spondent produced a will alleged tb have .bc-n written by the deceased (Onc- Damian) ioh, if nc- weit by it, disinlieritc-d the appellant. Howeiar the trial court declared th will invalid as it did not comply with the rules of,wills, as set forth in.GN436/6.3 e Th c-ffoctof it was that the appellant had a share in th intestate etc of the deceased under the custoary law. The respondent felt aggrieved and appealed 'p the District Court. .He;appointqdoneLeonard Kayo (the so called public writter) to represent him. The appeal procedad. Somcwhc-re in the midd1 (th District Msistrate said it was at the c-nd of the hearing) the appellant rose and said she wanted to ppoint sothone to represent her just as the rcspondt did. The rspond€nt side objected and the District ia.:istrate upheld the ohjcction. Hc-ncc this appeal. She argued she was prejudiced as the respondent was represented while she was dc-nied repr isentation. I have no intention to dc-cide whether t . hc District Magistrate was àOrrect or not. I am only satisfied that the respondent's appeal oVb of KatomaPrimary Cburt (dcclaring the will invalid) had no substance. The tc-statoi
did not sign it and it Was to by witnc-sscs reired b law. No ootrt worth of the nmc will acäc-pt its The despu.te tartdin 1977 and the appellant Iiàsnot got her hare of inheritance. To rmand the respondent's appeal to the District 'Court for hearing while it is claa it will not su.cced i0 to encourage the delay. roth parties S. agreed tht the r1ie' this inheri tance issue is settled t1d bettcr. 1 allow the appai. I quash the proce.i-ns and ruling in the D.strict Court Jpp€al ro. 79/78 and order that it be treated a Lwas'not filed at all. The reod of Icatorna Primary Couxt C.C. 7/77 be rcmitted beck to th a t oourt to Gnf,oj~ od Its jUdgc- mc-n-tp No ordcr as to oost. 2thjI8 ; IP.• .11 AY2I1!
JUDGIS 11
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.